Intra-faith dialogue

IN the recent pastoral statement of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines on Marawi, terrorism and dialogue, the bishops has called for “intra-faith dialogue among our respective co-religionists so that our various faiths may not be exploited and abused for the sake of terrorism and violent extremism.”

            At first blush, this may seem a long shot but, come to think of it, this is the more effective way to thwart extremism that usually fuels terrorism.   The call to educate both the young and the old in schools, churches and mosques so that “none may be lured by the recruitment efforts of terrorists” is most realistic.  The glaring proof is ISIS itself.  This terrorist organization has grown so big and so fast because of their superb “education” tactics.  As reported by CNN, the U.S. State Department has admitted that ISIS has the most sophisticated propaganda machine of any terrorist organization like “something we have not seen before.” They even harness massive use of social media in order to secure widespread following.

            In one of their social media posts, a certain Shiraz Tariq of Copenhagen convincingly argued, “No sane man kills for fun.  Not even his enemies.  But implementing as Islamic State takes sacrifices.  It is our duty to fight the infidels and take back what it was they took away from us.  It is our duty to implement the caliphate.  Islam is superior and will never be beaten.”  This, of course, is propaganda and a very radical way of presenting Islam.  Reality takes a different turn.

            The pursuit towards intra-faith dialogue will dissuade future recruits from joining terrorist groups such as the Maute.  They have to be conscientized that “no religion teaches the killing of innocent people, simply because they belong to another religion” or that “abducting and hostaging, maiming and killing the innocent” contradict the fundamental tenets of Islam.

            Other religions or religious denominations need to take intra-faith dialogue seriously, too.  The buttressing of Islamophobia is another face of extremism that maybe as fatally consequential as Islamic fundamentalism.

World Day of the Poor

POPE Francis has instituted the World Day of the Poor.   In his message for the first World Day of the Poor that will be observed on November 19 this year, he says, “To the World Days instituted by my Predecessors, which are already a tradition in the life of our communities, I wish to add this one, which adds to them an exquisitely evangelical fullness, that is, Jesus’ preferential love for the poor.”

            That did not come as a surprise.  Already upon assumption into his Petrine ministry he took on the name Francis, the saint of Assisi who, according to him “was a man of peace, a man of poverty, a man who loved and protected creation.” The poor were already the centerpiece of his papacy.

            At the Manila Cathedral he departed from the prepared speech and said. “The poor.  The poor are at the center of the Gospel, are at the heart of the Gospel.  If we take away the poor from the Gospel we can’t understand the whole message of Jesus Christ.” At the closing mass of his visit to the country, Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle said, “You arrived in the Philippines 3 days ago.  Tomorrow, you will go.  Every Filipino wants to go with you.  Don’t be afraid.  Every Filipino wants to go with you—not to Rome—but to the peripheries.”  Going to the peripheries or the preferential option for the poor was already the language of the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines in 1991.

            In his message, Pope Francis quotes Blessed Paul VI who addressed during the Opening of Second Session of Vatican II in 1963 that “All the poor belong to the Church by evangelical right.”  Indeed, the poor is the core of the Gospel.  Which is why, it is a scandalous irony for a Gospel preacher to be clad in a lifestyle that substantially is an antithesis with the life and values of the poor.   In a recent homily, Archbishop Soc Villegas was quoted as saying, “The story of a priest cannot be a story from rags to riches… because if the story of a priest is from rags to riches then that priest is a Judas who enriched himself with 30 pieces of silver.”

            According to Pope Francis poverty is about loving “not with words but with deeds.”  It is a call to follow the very poverty of Jesus.  “It is an interior attitude that avoids looking upon money, career and luxury as our goal in life and the condition for our happiness.  Poverty instead creates the conditions for freely shouldering our personal and social responsibilities, despite our limitations, with trust in God’s closeness and the support of his grace.  Poverty, understood in his way, is the yardstick that allows us to judge how best to use material goods and to build relationships that are neither selfish nor possessive.”

            It should be a relief that finally there is a World Day of the Poor.  This is not only going deeper into exegesis or theology.  Hopefully, this will inspire Church people to live and concretely witness what they have been theologizing for centuries now.    The poor is a way of life.   So says Pope Francis:  “We may think of the poor simply as the beneficiaries of our occasional volunteer work, or of impromptu acts of generosity that appease our conscience.  However good and useful such acts may be for making us sensitive to people’s needs and the injustices that are often their cause, they ought to lead to a true encounter with the poor and a sharing that becomes a way of life.” 

Martial law and terrorism

ALTHOUGH it may said that President Rodrigo Duterte had an inkling of declaring martial rule early on to solve the country's pressing problems, it was because of the terroristic act of the Maute group that he placed in haste the entire Mindanao under martial law.

            

Everybody condemns terrorism.  In the words of Mindanao Catholic bishops, "In the strongest terms we condemn terrorism in its various forms.  It is an ideology that is totally against the tenets of any religion of peace.  Especially so when terrorism is perpetrated while our Muslim brothers and sisters are preparing for the holy month of Ramadhan.  Terrorism distorts and falsifies the true meaning of any religion."

            

The majority of the Senators and, presumably, the majority of the population support the decision of President Duterte to declare Martial Law in response to the Marawi crisis.  Most netizens, or mostly those who have not experienced the Marcos rule, have no second thoughts about martial law. For them what is important is a once-and-for-all solution to the protracted Mindanao conflict.  At this point in time, many believe that martial law is the only answer to local terrorism.  For now, it does not matter that the root cause of the conflict in Mindanao lurks in social injustice, poverty and, to quote Pope Francis, in "ideology that masquerades as religion."

            

Despite safeguards guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution, however, not a few have questioned the legitimacy and efficacy of declaring Martial Law.  The Catholic bishops of Mindanao in a statement signed by Cardinal Orlando Quevedo have raised several questions, too.  But the answers to many questions, they say, are speculative.  "We have many fears.  But at present we simply do not have solid and sufficient facts to absolutely reject the declaration of Martial Law as morally reprehensible. But we are certainly agreed that Martial Law must be temporary.  We shall condemn any abuse of Martial Law and as in the past will condemn it outright if it goes in the way of evil," so said the bishops.

            

The only rub is, history do have many answers even to forward-looking questions.  Even without mentioning Ferdinand Marcos, Sr., who seems to be the idol of the present dispensation, other countries tell of history where absolute rule has become worse than pockets of terrorism.  Terrorism pales in comparison with the devastation that absolute military might has plagued humanity.   Pray tell that there are no dictators in the making out there, or else even Congress and other democratic institutions will not be able to withstand--as in the past.

Age of criminal liability

SPECIFICALLY in the matter of good manners and right conduct, one of the now well existent big predicament of young people up to fifteen years old sadly consists in their personal witnessing of the truly bad manners and really wrong conduct of older individuals—be these their own elders, close friends and/or these and those adults they come to meet and to know. 

There is a rather well-known saying that “words are mere sounds but examples entice.”  So it is that given the many and serious errant examples, amoral action and reaction patterns of their elders, a good number of young people themselves nonchalantly commit downright crimes to the surprise, apprehension and even disgust of the older individuals. 

The immediate conclusion and instant recourse of their elders—the Legislators in particular came loud and clear:  Lower the age of criminal liability from fifteen years old to whatever agreed much younger age!  This move would frighten even but really young people to commit crimes, would make them obey the laws of the land and thus become better individuals of their communities, better citizens of the country.  In other words, apply the Penal Law of the country even to young people below fifteen years old and there will be a more trustworthy and dependable young people, a more safe and peaceful Philippines.

Wrong!  Why?  If a good number of the youth of today behave badly, do wrong and even engage in criminal acts as a matter of fact, the more realistic reason for such socio-moral malady is not really their young age of fifteen years old.  The more common and pervasive causal factor of their criminal actuations is the more and more criminal actions and reactions of their elders who are in fact becoming more in number and insensitivity.  This very disturbing phenomenon finds its basic causal factor in way downright killings day and night, here and there that have practically become the standard reality and practice of the times.  Human rights there are none—except for the rich and powerful.

What is right or wrong, what is just or unjust do not matter really whereas might is right.  This is the living lamentable as well as dangerous socio-unethical reality now obtaining in the country that is so evident that it is downright foolish to ask for evidence or proof.  What is more pitiful and unreasonable is that there are supposedly learned and even wise Legislators who want to resolve the above said social liability by simply lowering the physical age of the youth—to but boys and girls—for their criminal prosecution.  This is a case of proposed solution much worse than the problem.

Is it so hard to understand that if the young people of today are not exactly angels, when incarnate devils they become, this is by and large on account of the devilish value system and consequent amoral action patterns of their elders?  Correct wherefore the elders—not penalize the young.

Out of touch

A PALACE functionary was quoted recently as saying, “The officials of the (CBCP) are apparently out of touch with the sentiments of the faithful who overwhelmingly support the changes in the Philippines—turning the nation into a safer place for families, working people, especially young night shift workers, far from the ‘terror’ the bishops paint rather dramatically.”  This was obviously a reaction to the pastoral letter on extrajudicial killings read in all parishes nationwide on February 5.

            

The government secretary may actually be right.  The only rub is, he must have based his observation in social media where the bishops or most church people are irrefutably out of touch.  Social media in the country today is heavily populated by supporters of the Duterte administration.    The Mocha Uson Blog alone boasts of 4.7 million followers, as of this writing. That’s definitely way above the “likers” of mainstream media networks that are also migrating into social media.  Without delving into the issue of how they have exponentially gathered millions of social media content providers and rabid supporters in so short a time, suffice it to say that this state of things has made the current dispensation dominate the Philippine socio-political landscape—and, more significantly, the crafting of public opinion.

            

To drive home a more terrifying point, when one, for instance, makes a negative comment against the Duterte government, which is needed in a healthy democratic process, expect a relentless bashing that are dished in social media from “ad hominem” arguments to manufactured “half-truths”.   The CBCP has always been a favorite target of a bashing routine.  Since the CBCP is not keen on correcting conjectures and propaganda pieces,  half-truths and wrong perceptions become, in the long run, “true” in the eyes of the receiving public.  The accusation viralling in social media lately that the reason why CBCP issued a pastoral letter against extra juridical killings is because of the closure of 23 mining operations, implying that the Catholic Church has a stake in some of them.  This is absolutely false on all counts, of course.  Since no correction was made in social media, millions of netizens seemingly believe this now as true.

            

While admittedly the bishops and their priests are mostly out of touch with the virtual world of the internet, they are definitely not with the real world.  Being the most immersed servant-leaders in the country, there is no barrio in the Philippines today that is not covered by a parish priest.   There is simply no way that these priests will not know the deepest sentiments of their parishioners.  But, of course, there are quite a few of them who find it hard to live by Pope Francis’ pastoral directive of becoming “shepherds with the smell of sheep.” 

            

One does not need mastery in rocket science to know that an average of 35 or so people killed daily or over 7,000 people murdered in barely 6 months is not a reign of terror.  With not a single case really investigated or brought to justice or a killing spree fueled, how could one in his right senses declare that people are safe.   If the bishops are out of touch, then so are Time magazine, New York Times, the BBC and other reputable media outlets who were ahead of the bishops in reporting this 6-month reign of terror in the Philippines.  If the Palace is right, the Amnesty International, a Nobel Prize awardee, will belong to the same “out-of-touch” category.

            

In the same statement quoted above, the Palace functionary continues his piece, “The efforts of these Church leaders might be put to better use in practical catechetics that build strong moral character among the faithful, and so contribute more to the reign of peace felt by ordinary citizens everywhere, especially those who are innocent of illegal activities.”  Simply put, this says that exercising citizen’s democratic right to denounce a wrong in government is not to put ones lot “to better use.”   Also, not to say something against the murder of over 7,000 poor Filipinos “contribute more to the reign of peace” and by doing “practical catechesis” without any bit of relevance to the daily problems on the ground, build “a strong moral character.”  

            

One may just exclaim with Roman Senator Cicero of old, not on social media, of course, for fear of being bashed, “O tempora, O mores!”

           

Interpreting a president

THE Malacañang Press Corps (MPC) issued a statement of late addressed to the Government’s Communications Secretary who accused them of misreporting the President’s talk on martial law.   “We take exception to the statement of Presidential Communications Secretary Martin Andanar, accusing the media of ‘misreporting’ President Rodrigo Duterte’s statement about Martial Law,” the MPC said in a statement.

            

The media that merely paraphrased the president’s remark was hurt. “We are disturbed and appalled by the propensity of the officials of this administration to blame the media whenever inflammatory statements of the President stir controversy or draw flak.”     The “misinterpretation” or “misreporting” that the media was accused of by the President’s apologists is consequential because it pierces right into fiber that journalism is made of, which is the truth—especially now that the manufacture and proliferation of “fake news” has become a lucrative industry and a propaganda machine.

            

But how more consequential could it be when “interpreting” becomes the business of those who have been empowered to use a gun.  How would, for instance, a police force interpret a “war on drugs” if not literally killing those in drugs?   The president has been talking without lit up about killing drug traffickers and users who are mostly poor because “they have become worse than slaves.”  Earlier on he has been saying that the “fish in Manila Bay will grow fat” because they will be feed with dead bodies.   By the looks of it, the police have taken this as “policy statements” that gave them an umbrella power to hack to death anybody they want.   Columnist Randy David puts it curtly when he wrote that the war on drugs “has normalized abduction and the raiding of home, and has made killing an everyday thing.”

            

The big problem with the president’s statement is that there are instances he backtracks thus leading people to conclude that his “facts” are not verified and his sources not foolproof. This makes the list in the order of battle, those targeted for liquidation, very indiscriminate and unstable.  But what if his analysis and perspective where his decisions are based are wrong?  History will bear that never has killing thousands of people been right no matter how noble the cause.

            
On the side, the country will have to bear with a leader entrusted with over 100 million lives but is not in the habit of accepting criticisms.  He prowls like a roaring lion ready to attack anybody who brandishes an opposing opinion. In this worldview, martial rule is a logical upshot. The change that everybody has been groaning for is becoming very uncertain now. No matter how one interprets it, these are uneasy times.